| |
| ▲ | Smeevy 14 days ago | parent [-] | | Even more disingenuity. You are simultaneously defending cynical abuse of government systems and high-minded altruism. >The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did. So most of the stuff being cancelled will, in some form or another, be rebooted in the future, even if only out of spite. "Everybody is awful. Especially the people with whom I disagree." >But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? Your argument is that we should industrialize Africa countries to make their own medicine rather than giving it to people who are literally dying? I suppose that orphans and grieving parents should take solace that there's a long term plan being discussed by people who have no intention of following through on it. >Shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish, let alone when his life depends upon it. That man should, of course, starve to death so your taxes are reduced by a fraction of a penny. We all know that Rwanda is just a week away from being a global manufacturing powerhouse anyway. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 14 days ago | parent [-] | | This is not an either/or scenario. If one wanted to maintain the handouts while simultaneously working to ensure they won't be necessary in the future, we absolutely could. And it doesn't take years to spin up plant and lab, months at most. But we do nothing of the sort, and there's no logical reason for this, unless the entire point is to create dependencies. And when I speak of the US political system I'm obviously not speaking of this side or that. Both sides operate the same way in regards to each other, with all the sophistication of two children in a playground spat. --- Actually there's even a simple litmus test here to evaluate your own belief in "high-minded altruism." Imagine Russia or China decided to start pumping billions into projects in rural America: food banks/free healthcare/etc - lots of free stuff, but with no effort to create sustainability. Beyond this there would be no strings attached and no further aims than improving the life of rural Americans. Would you again support such "high-minded altruism"? | | |
| ▲ | Smeevy 14 days ago | parent [-] | | We're well past hypotheticals here and it is pointless to talk about what we "could" do. The decision has been made to let food and medicine expire in warehouses and to withhold funds to aid organizations both domestically and abroad. There's no second part to this plan. Promises have been broken and will not be renewed. Also, local NGOs absolutely care about sustainable solutions to problems. Aid workers are not some mustache-twirling, dependency-creating villains. The argument against "giving a man a fish" is very convenient for people that don't want to do anything to help. Starving people need food. They don't love starving. They're not starving out of spite or to make us feel guilty. Even if it's their own fault they're starving, basic morality mandates that we try to help. I'm not religious, but less misery in the world, by any means necessary, seems a worthy goal. As for Russia and China helping out rural America, I wish they would. At least someone would be helping then. I would, in fact, welcome their assistance in urban areas as well. I do regular volunteer work with a little free pantry nearby and it is cleaned out every single day. That is a societal failure and the US government just made it worse on purpose. I'm responding out of order to your statements, but the "both sides" argument you have here is a false equivalence. I don't love the Democratic party, but there is a wide gap in cynical manipulation of the law and procedure between them and the Republicans. Are you intimating that Democrat legislators sat on Supreme Court nominees while waiting out a Republican presidency? That a Democrat-controlled congress abdicated their budgetary and oversight responsibilities to a Democrat president? There is a clear difference in respect for institutions between our two political options and saying "they're both bad" seeks to minimize the misconduct of American far-right conservatives and overstate the failings of our wembling, capitulating, center-left Democratic party. I understand that you are most likely tired of reading this from me and I appreciate the time you have taken to do so. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 13 days ago | parent [-] | | NGO workers may not be 'mustache-twirling villains' but USAID literally is, well perhaps sans the mustache. They are actively and regularly used to destroy and/or manipulate countries while operating under the pretext of aid. Their purpose is not to help other countries, but to manipulate them. What I'm saying about sustainability is not some outside angle. Look at most of any effective charity doing work in impoverished places and it's always about sustainability. In the most typical example you don't simply give water to people - instead you encourage, and if necessary - assist, them in building wells. Charity will eventually run out for one reason or another, and when your entire system has been built with no focus on sustainability you can create catastrophic scenarios. And I don't really think there is some huge gap in between the parties - they both keep stooping to ever new lows in order to get one off on 'the other side' all while they are both are in almost complete harmony when it comes to corporate handouts and warmongering. As I'm sure you're aware I could list a zillion things the DNC has done, but I don't really see the point? Do we give each side -1 point for each time they screwed people over, and see who gets the lowest score.. and probably still not change our views? It's pointless. And no, why would I be tired of reading what you're writing? What fun is there is in talking to somebody you agree with? 'Yeah man, you're so right, and so I am. Yeah... yeah.' Having a good healthy debate is far more pleasant. For instance in our little conversation you really shattered my stereotypes by stating you'd be happy with Russia or China providing support to rural areas, and that's always a fun thing! | | |
| ▲ | Smeevy 13 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >NGO workers may not be 'mustache-twirling villains' but USAID literally is, well perhaps sans the mustache. They are actively and regularly used to destroy and/or manipulate countries while operating under the pretext of aid. Their purpose is not to help other countries, but to manipulate them. Since the tone of our conversation has turned more reasonable, it is my hope that you can see how sweeping this generalization is. Given the amount of misinformation surrounding USAID (just check Snopes, man), I'm loath to accept this claim on its face. I reject your assertion that the world is better by destroying USAID and replacing it with nothing. This is costing lives both foreign and domestic. If I withheld promised food and medicine from starving and sick people, they would die and it would be my fault. I don't see any reasonable conclusion otherwise. You can try to argue otherwise, but I would refuse to endorse such vile callousness. >What I'm saying about sustainability is not some outside angle. Look at most of any effective charity doing work in impoverished places and it's always about sustainability. In the most typical example you don't simply give water to people - instead you encourage, and if necessary - assist, them in building wells. Charity will eventually run out for one reason or another, and when your entire system has been built with no focus on sustainability you can create catastrophic scenarios. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'm not seeing your point here. You're advocating for a "correct" kind of assistance and the world just doesn't work that way. There's many different kinds of charity and assistance and they all serve different purposes, so your argument is just simplifying a complex interplay of variables to a single equation. I applaud the long-term strategic view you are espousing, but you appear to be falling into the trap of assuming that all of these problems actually have solutions. We can wax poetic about teaching a man to fish, but that man is going to die if we don't give him a damn fish first. The clean, elegant solutions to global problems you're alluding to aren't being implemented because they're difficult and fraught with peril. This is going to be a little offensive, but do you honestly believe that no one else thought of trying to make these beneficiaries self-sufficient? It's hard and people were (and are) trying. Regarding a point system about political malfeasance, why not? If we're going to engage in relativism, we should at least know how they stack up relatively rather than waving our hands and saying "everybody sucks." It's irresponsible and intellectually lazy. Also, if you can list a single Democrat misdeed on par with January 6, delaying Supreme Court appointments, or abdicating the power of the purse then please do. Just one. Anything. The catch here is that is has to have actually happened. It can't be some slopped-up "they wanted to do this" or unrealized conspiracy. It has to have actually happened in America on Earth within the last 3 decades. After that, I'm okay with counting as well. We all need to keep track of how power is applied with neither tribalism nor nihilism. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 12 days ago | parent [-] | | Apologies in advance for the link bombing in this response. I want to make it clear that what I'm saying is not off the cuff. USAID was founded in the early Cold War era precisely as a weapon against the Soviet Union and the "international communist conspiracy." An amusing quote that is taken verbatim from the Foreign Assistance Act, which you can read here. [1] You can also see this is the funding prioritization. USAID was being funded with ~$50 billion. That's substantially greater than the budget of, for instance, NASA even as we approach the dawn of the space age. The government does not value "high-minded altruism" more than it does maintaining supremacy in space, but they certainly value maintaining dominance of other countries above it. You can also see the exact issues I'm focusing on in academic analyses, such as here [2]. USAID also operates in complete contradiction to international agreements on aid such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. [3] You will note that point #1 is "ownership" which is again focused entirely on sustainability by ensuring that developing countries own the means to sustain themselves. Rejection of this is not normal and USAID was actively criticized for such. FOCAC [4] is the analog Chinese equivalent (for Africa at least) and they are actively and they're openly attacking USAID's behavior in a way that has generally been highly effective in developing true soft power in Africa, because it's not like these countries don't know what we're doing. Quoting the Wiki on FOCAC, the Chinese position is that "Each country has the right to choose, in its course of development, its own social system, development model, and way of life in light of its national conditions... Moreover, the politicization of human rights conditionalities on economic assistance should be vigorously opposed to as they constitute a violation of human rights." And FOCAC has indeed been highly involved in the deploying of permanent structures, training of locals, and much more. --- As for the US political stuff - ok fine. I'll raise you formally legalizing indefinite detention without trial, including of American citizens on American soil, signed into law, and advocated for, by Obama. [5] I'm really tempted to on some rant here, but again I just don't see the point. [1] - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-107... [2] - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-22219-3_... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_forums_on_aid_effec... [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_on_China%E2%80%93Africa_... [5] - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in... | | |
| ▲ | Smeevy 12 days ago | parent [-] | | This may be a good point to recap. It is not my intent to misstate your rationales here, so please tell me if I have mischaracterized your viewpoint. Nuance is tragically difficult to convey on HN. -- Your initial argument, which I believe we're still discussing, was "Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption." The implicit assertion here is that USAID was rightfully defunded and that that was correct given the way it has conducted itself since 1961. You have submitted evidence regarding its creation and the underlying intent therein as well as documented instances of poor, ineffective behavior. My argument is that the manner in which USAID was defunded is indefensible because it was done without consideration of existing obligations, thereby creating a vacuum of support. To this point, I haven't seen any argument to my issue with the method of USAID's dismantling. We're talking about real harm to real people's lives and livelihoods and you've ignored that aspect entirely and countered with more information about the organization. Let me say it plainly: I do not care about USAID the agency and its history. I care about the careless way in which its contracts and programs were ended. Saying and proving that USAID was bad doesn't justify canceling the good works for which it was responsible. -- A second point of discussion was on the nature of effective charity. This is an altogether deeper topic, so bear with me on this: You are advocating that charitable organizations should be working to solve root problems and not just providing material assistance. Additionally, you have stated that charitable contributions are not a sustainable means of helping people in the longer term. My argument is that that you always need both. As I've done more and more volunteer work and gotten out of my comfort zone of affluence, I've become much more dismissive of any proposed "perfect" or "optimal" solutions. There is a tendency, especially in America, to reject any solution that doesn't completely solve a problem. The alternative to the rejected solution typically being to continue doing whatever is currently being done. Can you see how this appears to be what you're engaging in? Giving food to poor people is not an optimal solution. I agree that it would be better if the poor people got their own food, but that's not happening right now. Stopping the conversation at what "should" be happening might make us feel better about ourselves, but it does nothing to combat human misery. This point is also a distraction from my fundamental question: Should USAID have been dismantled without a transition plan? I don't mind that we've veered off into the nature of effective charity since that is a topic in which I have an interest, but I believe that we're here because of a rationalization on your part to downplay the impact of USAID's work. Since we're talkin about people and their actual lives, we have to be aware of outcomes. There is no shortage of talk about "how" to help people and a dearth of people actually doing something about it. USAID, in a very real way, was involved in doing some positive things both domestically and abroad. That is gone now and your argument seems to be that the outcomes could have been better if something that never happened was done instead. -- Following that, there is a side discussion relating to what I'll refer to as "bothsidesism": Your original assertion is that defunding USAID is not as severe as it may seem now because the other party will come back and rebuild that organization when they're back in power. You expand the argument to say both sides operate in largely the same manner. My response, minus substantial snark, is that the is that there are exceedingly clear differences in conduct between the two political parties, particularly as it relates to abuse of power and procedural rules. Thanks so much for reminding me about indefinite detention. I hope Dianne Feinstein rots for eternity for shoehorning that clause into a budget bill. It was disgusting then and they tried to backpedal into limiting it and just making it worse. I don't see how legally drafting, passing, and signing a terrible provision on a bill is on par with the abuses of procedure that I mentioned. You are correct, though: this part of the discussion will not be particularly fruitful. I would ask that you reflect on the horror show that has been the last 2 months and ask yourself what the news would look like if Joe Biden did any of the same things. -- Finally, jlcases reminds us that serious discussion on the internet is even more difficult in the age of AI. Thanks, jlcases! | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 12 days ago | parent [-] | | My view with cancelling USAID is that the world is a better place because of such. Could it have been made even better if somehow we were able to selectively pick and choose 'worthy' programs and work to transition them out? Maybe, but perfect is not the enemy of good. And the reason I say maybe is because I have high doubts such a transitioning could have been done effectively in anything like a remotely viable timeframe. What genuine impact is felt with USAID's demise will be able to filled by the countless other aid organizations working in places like Africa. And while perfect is not the enemy of good, bad certainly is. And altruism without consideration of the consequences can easily become harmful. A recurring example is with food. A country will suffer some force majeure and be flooded with ongoing international donations of food. This sends the price of most basic foodstuffs plummeting, local farmers lose their livelihood, and suddenly the country becomes completely dependent upon foreign powers for food. This also happens when countries are encouraged by global organizations to lower food tariffs. This is one of the many ways that altruism can be weaponized - intentionally hurting by "helping." As for the politics stuff, I do not agree that refusing to advance a Supreme Court Candidate is worse than enabling legal indefinite detention of citizens without trial or representation. And, with all due respect, I'm fairly certain you don't think so either. I can't comment on the past two months because I'm generally quite supportive of it, though I did not vote for Trump either time. In general though I think the notion of an 'advanced economy' is farcical: You take all of the most critical parts of your economy, ship them off elsewhere, and largely replace them with superflous luxury goods and services. I see this as both exploitative and unsustainable, and it creates behemoth multinational corporations that, in many ways, end up having even more power than governments. I'd like to imagine we learned a lesson or two from the East India Company. But perhaps it's like 1984, we did learn lessons - just the wrong ones. | | |
| ▲ | Smeevy 11 days ago | parent [-] | | We are unfortunately destined to disagree on these points and definitely some others. You do write very well and I believe you have some reasons for your positions, but they don't appear logically consistent to me. Just to descend into pedantry: "Perfect is the enemy of the good." That's the aphorism. The misapplication undercuts the argument you're making from a composition standpoint. It's like you're saying "the sword is mightier than the pen." Your position on ending USAID is impractical on a moral basis. If the solution you're comfortable with is to risk people dying when the alternative was to take a period of time to responsibly transition obligations, then I conclude that the immediate welfare of those people is less important to you than the shuttering of USAID. Was the situation so dire that we couldn't even ship food and medicine for which we had already paid? This is the equivalent of addressing the trolley problem by arresting the bystander and turning your back on the whole troublesome thing. This fragment is also disappointing for me: "[...] if somehow we were able to selectively pick and choose 'worthy' programs [...]". Somehow? All of USAID's programs were actively reporting status and commitments and that information was not utilized. I understand that you support one of the outcomes, ending USAID, but the collateral damage was entirely avoidable. You're creating a false urgency here and I can't quite determine if it is a blind spot in your reasoning or a rhetorical trick. You also counter with: 1) a "slippery slope" argument that leads to the expedient conclusion that we should leave everything to someone else because we wouldn't want to harm someone by helping too much and then having something go wrong thereby leaving them in a worse position than they would be otherwise. That's very convenient. 2) an implicit accusation that all USAID programs existed without consideration of consequences. I say "all" because the existence of any USAID programs that were thoughtfully implemented with sustainability in mind are prevented from sliding down your slippery slope because anyone else would have to do as good as or better than USAID in order for it to make any difference in the outcome. Can you see how fallacy-ridden your reasoning is here? You should reconcile these beliefs against an ethical framework. Just pick one or two and think about it. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This turned out surprisingly lengthy. I want to support my claims with examples to make it clear that this isn't just hand-waving or off the cuff claims, so such as it is! I am not opposed to shipping aid that was already paid for if it would go to waste otherwise, but when we speak of transitioning programs in general, that would require an audit of each and every program - which is likely impossible. The reason is that when USAID does things it is done indirectly, by relying on contractors, subcontractors and other entities. Let's consider the rebuilding of Haiti. They were involved in that operation, spearheaded by the Red Cross, which ended up spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build exactly 6 permanent housing units, and exactly 0 people were held accountable. How could this happen? If you look at their disbursements they're always going to go to plausible sounding entities, for plausible sounding amounts of funding, that plausibly contribute to a goal in a logical way. So to actually audit this you need to get down on the ground level, worldwide, and start auditing those contractors. But each of them will also be doing the exact same thing on down a chain with ever less reliable accounting and other variability. Even if you can finally get to a 'leaf node' they may have plausible shells entities setup, may have 'gone out of business', or maybe they never even existed and it actually turns out the leaf-1 node sent you on a wild goose chase. It's just not really practical. This is why I think auditing each program is simply not viable. --- My fundamental argument is that USAID is an agency that uses aid as a weapon, which misaligns their efforts. This was the point of their founding and has been clearly demonstrated by contemporary actions as well, let alone the classified programs they were involved in. Because of this, I think their dismantling is making the world a better place. Could it have been done even better? Maybe, but then we're back to the above. You can also see this weaponization in Haiti. After the earthquake USAID decided to spend some of their funding [1] getting people to vote for this [2] fine fellow and against this [3] lady, a constitutional law professor and widow of a former president. "Her platform for the presidency included a focus on education of the youth of Haiti, and lifting the long-standing and restrictive constitutional conditions on dual nationality. She specifically promoted opening government positions for members of the Haitian diaspora. Manigat also aimed for a more independent Haitian state, one less reliant upon and subject to foreign governments and NGOs." Instead USAID encouraged people to vote for a musician with no political experience who was "notorious for his cursing on stage, cross-dressing as well as using homophobic slurs." He'd eventually end up being sanctioned by the US and Canada for being involved in drug trafficking to the US, human rights violations, and overtly backing armed Haitian criminal gangs. His reign also unsurprisingly featured excessive corruption, him taking millions in bribes (in a country with a GDP/capita of less than $4k), and more. It's likely that the main reason USAID was backing him is because his opponent was in favor of a more independent Haiti. Who would have been better for Haitians? But who would be better for the US? Hahaha, I'll grant the drug trafficking kind of makes that a harder question than it should be, but obviously I mean in more of a geopolitical Haiti-US sense than a personal one. Haiti remains in a completely horrific state, and I don't think "aid" that comes with these sort of strings attached is helping anybody, and is certainly causing substantial suffering. And this is a fairly softball example of weaponized aid! --- [1] - https://cepr.net/publications/revealed-usaid-funded-group-su... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat | |
| ▲ | 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jlcases 13 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's great to hear! Building that semantic structuring module, especially with a MECE approach, would significantly enhance the pipeline's value for complex downstream tasks like knowledge graph creation or advanced RAG systems. The challenge often lies in defining the right hierarchical taxonomy and relationship types for diverse document domains. If you're exploring approaches, principles from enterprise knowledge management and structured ontologies might offer useful parallels. Excited to see how this evolves! It addresses a critical gap in the ML data preparation landscape. |
|
|
|
|
|
